I'll believe it when I see it.
And they are quoting Alan Williams...............Meanwhile, no one is quite sure what the new frigates will cost it seems...
Why is the naval destroyer program wrapped in secrecy? The F-35 saga offers insights
Experts say politics is getting in the way of informing taxpayers
And they are quoting Alan Williams...............
![]()
This was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.Meanwhile, no one is quite sure what the new frigates will cost it seems...
Why is the naval destroyer program wrapped in secrecy? The F-35 saga offers insights
Experts say politics is getting in the way of informing taxpayers
Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!Based on the non-response from Europe to our non-elected Prime Minister designate I get the strong sense that we are on our own.
No joint conference with Starmer. A firm gladhand with Macron. An offer from Zelensky to teach us how to make drones. The Liberal's Designate proclaiming we don't need help anyway. We're Canada.
The result of too much convening and rejecting people when they were asking for help (Germans, Japanese, Scandinavians, Greeks....)?
The Euro factories are overstretched to meet their requirements - hence building new ones in a war zone (Ukraine).
Even if the Brits and the French wanted to patrol our Arctic for us they don't have the ships and subs to get the job done. They certainly don't have the bodies or transport to put anything more than a provocation on the ground.
Starmer and Macron are trying to manage a weak hand as it is. The last thing they need is to aggravate Trump any more than he already is.
....
Meanwhile, everything we do, militarily and economically, will be scrutinized by Washington. We will do what we are allowed to do. We will get the weapons we are allowed to have. Failure to comply, striking out on our own, will result in additional economic punishment. Or simple denial of US supplied systems.
....
We have left if kind of late to start being assertive.
Regardless if you where to build AB’s with handholding from us, you had no shipbuilding experience or capability.This was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.
Because that course of action is working out well for the USNThis was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.
You don’t need more LAV’s.Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!
I think that we announce something this morning/afternoon that is related to French arms - be it subs, planes, both or something else. I think Starmer is quite frankly scare of Trump and the 'destroying' of their special relationship and other than the announcement of the joint BAE/Irving shipbuilding news (which really does not go into much detail), they won't be doing much for us.
Plenty of things that we can begin to do inhouse to show that we are getting our house in order. First off, a substantially large order to the facility in London, Ontario to begin expanding our AFV numbers, both for RegF and ResF. Second, getting off our ass and signing/expanding our ability to produce arty shells, add to that a fast tracked agreement to add 80-98 new arty that we've already begun. Third, move forward the Kingston replacement programme, outsource the hull builds to SK or Romania and use these to begin offsetting the retirement of the Halifax's ASAP.
The glass can be half empty if you look at it in a certain light and just keep chipping away at the tasks at hand and don't pull back and look at the whole of the issues.
Just keep swimming!
Mission creep enters the chat. I beleive that most of the Naval folks here have pointed out that virtually every country has bespoke requirements. You just need to ensure the base platform can accommodate the modifications. That program missed that point altogether.Because that course of action is working out well for the USN
Based on the non-response from Europe to our non-elected Prime Minister designate I get the strong sense that we are on our own.
GDLS is an American company. Local jobs for sure but still a US company for those who argue against it.the facility in London, Ontario
BAE would be my choice for Canada at this junction for land systems. Not discounting Korea either.GDLS is an American company. Local jobs for sure but still a US company for those who argue against it.
BAE would be my choice for Canada at this junction for land systems. Not discounting Korea either.
Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!
I think that we announce something this morning/afternoon that is related to French arms - be it subs, planes, both or something else. I think Starmer is quite frankly scare of Trump and the 'destroying' of their special relationship and other than the announcement of the joint BAE/Irving shipbuilding news (which really does not go into much detail), they won't be doing much for us.
Plenty of things that we can begin to do inhouse to show that we are getting our house in order. First off, a substantially large order to the facility in London, Ontario to begin expanding our AFV numbers, both for RegF and ResF. Second, getting off our ass and signing/expanding our ability to produce arty shells, add to that a fast tracked agreement to add 80-98 new arty that we've already begun. Third, move forward the Kingston replacement programme, outsource the hull builds to SK or Romania and use these to begin offsetting the retirement of the Halifax's ASAP.
The glass can be half empty if you look at it in a certain light and just keep chipping away at the tasks at hand and don't pull back and look at the whole of the issues.
Just keep swimming!
The technologies are well known and based on massive swarms of air, sea and land drones;
AI, command, computer, communications, surveillance, targeting, decision-making and control systems;
land and sea mines;
anti-air, land and sea stand-off weapons;
electronics, jamming and counter-jamming systems;
reserve low earth orbiter satellites;
3D printing and advanced and additive manufacturing logistics and other related systems.
Sufficient long range firepower for follow on forces attack/deep strike will disrupt enemy logistics and decapitate senior leaders.
The United States Navy stands at a critical juncture, and as the global maritime landscape evolves, so too must our approach to maintaining naval supremacy. As it stands now, the navy is incapable of being active in three simultaneous theaters, lacks the depth in munitions, ships, and personnel for sustained combat operations, and struggles to produce the necessary warships, using outdated concepts from World War II and the Cold War.
Which is to say, almost every part of the system is flawed. To address these challenges, the Navy must pivot away from large, costly platforms and embrace mass production and customizability. The service’s guiding philosophy should focus on autonomous systems, AI, cyber, electronic warfare, and distributed lethality, and include a cultural shift toward viewing software programmers as key partners for sailors.
Agreed, but my GDLS aspect for the London plant is more that Canada doesn’t need more LAV. It needs a more diverse Army equipment plan.I don't think it's much of an issue if it's an American company building in Canada. The dependency scare is getting cut off from spares, software, etc. Less risk of that for anything made in Canada.
Agreed, but my GDLS aspect for the London plant is more that Canada doesn’t need more LAV. It needs a more diverse Army equipment plan.
If GDLS wanted to build M1A3’s and their MICV candidate vehicles in Canada I’d be thrilled for that.
But…